3 ms·

The apparatus we call GFW is really a Chinese CDC for memes. The CDC expects novel strains of bird flu every year, it’s okay, they closely monitor the situation

by ipnon 1y ago

The apparatus we call GFW is really a Chinese CDC for memes. The CDC expects novel strains of bird flu every year, it’s okay, they closely monitor the situation, research the novel strains, cull risky populations, and develop vaccines for worst case scenarios. GFW expects novel strains of anti-CCP viral memes every year, it’s okay, they closely monitor the situation, they analyze the meme for spreaders and origin, they use the new meme to gauge changes in public sentiment, they fine or jail or imprison particularly quarrelsome netizens, and in the worst case scenario they prepare narrative shifts or outright censorship to maintain a net that is deemed healthy. It’s meme epidemiology, with mind viruses instead of RNA viruses.

wartywhoa23 1y ago
It's not meme epidemiology, it's outright fascism
xyzzy123 1y ago
I think GFW is more of a fallback (hammer) in the overall system but yeah that does happen "in detail" on WeChat etc. In the US, censorship is obviously a hot-button political topic (core values), but we are starting to see US concerns around things like troll farms, foreign influence, election misinformation etc and systems to quietly tamp that down. The sorts of things that appeared in the "Twitter Files". The US doesn't usually need "big hammer" technical controls for this because they have legal control over the corporations involved and can ask them to moderate themselves in line with US law & natsec requirements. Places like e.g. the UK are in an interesting pickle because while they are _largely_ culturally aligned with the US, their lawmakers don't have the same level of influence on platforms. They can either impotently "shake their fist at the sky"; or they can reach agreements so the major platforms co-operate with their governments; or they implement China-like technical controls.
- ipnon 1y ago
  UK and PRC need a censorship apparatus because they are one party states. UK is a monarchy based on a religious aristocracy. PRC is a socialist state with Chinese characteristics. Memes can destroy these countries because they can delegitimize the despot. But in America memes benefit the polity, because parties lose power all the time. We’re constantly switching who rules, and the baton passes frequently enough that we tacitly agree it’s better to just come back next election with better memes. A meme like “Trump shouldn’t be President” is not an existential threat to America, whereas “Charles shouldn’t be King” and “Xi shouldn’t be Chairman” are direct threats to the continuation of their respective systems of government. It’s the definitive strength of the United States.
  - sofixa 1y ago
    > UK is a monarchy based on a religious aristocracy Not really. The Monarch has no real power, only "influence", but they don't step in even in the face of disaster (Brexit). It's pretty weird to have a developed country with a state religion, but in reality, it has no bearing on anything. But the US has shown us that "tradition" and principles aren't enough to stop a hostile takeover of power. A Trump-like future monarch could do a lot of damage if they decided; so indeed the UK could do with lots of reforms to enforce proper separations and encode the purely ceremonial role of the monarch.
    - lazide 1y ago
      Eh, Trump is able to do what he does because he’s a populist and a bully in a society that hopes it can either get rich, or not be destroyed, if they just go along. The odds of a monarch pushing those buttons is quite low - monarchs by definition don’t need to be populists, and are rarely able to pretend to make the rest of the population rich either. Much more likely to the UK would end up with a PM doing it, and they’d nuke the last vestiges of the Monarchy in the process. The UK monarchy long ago lost the balls to survive a fight like that.
    - 7952 1y ago
      British tradition does have more teeth though. For example whilst the Monarch may not use that power normally they still have it. With support of the Privy council the King absolutely could remove a malicious but democratic government. They are perfectly placed to unify the people, politicians, civic society, judiciary, police and military. And they can do so legally. And this position is defended by the perfectly reasonable response that they would never do that or have any real power. But then who does? The PM can be replaced in an afternoon by a vote. Parliament would need substantial changes of law to do anything.
      - rcxdude 1y ago
        Parliament is ultimately where the power is. If there's a struggle for power, it would be between parliament and the monarch. I think the only situation where the monarch wins that is if parliament has clearly lost their democratic mandate somehow (like truly massive widespread protests from the population).

by ipnon 1y ago

wartywhoa23 1y ago

It's not meme epidemiology, it's outright fascism

xyzzy123 1y ago

I think GFW is more of a fallback (hammer) in the overall system but yeah that does happen "in detail" on WeChat etc. In the US, censorship is obviously a hot-button political topic (core values), but we are starting to see US concerns around things like troll farms, foreign influence, election misinformation etc and systems to quietly tamp that down. The sorts of things that appeared in the "Twitter Files". The US doesn't usually need "big hammer" technical controls for this because they have legal control over the corporations involved and can ask them to moderate themselves in line with US law & natsec requirements. Places like e.g. the UK are in an interesting pickle because while they are _largely_ culturally aligned with the US, their lawmakers don't have the same level of influence on platforms. They can either impotently "shake their fist at the sky"; or they can reach agreements so the major platforms co-operate with their governments; or they implement China-like technical controls.

ipnon 1y ago
UK and PRC need a censorship apparatus because they are one party states. UK is a monarchy based on a religious aristocracy. PRC is a socialist state with Chinese characteristics. Memes can destroy these countries because they can delegitimize the despot. But in America memes benefit the polity, because parties lose power all the time. We’re constantly switching who rules, and the baton passes frequently enough that we tacitly agree it’s better to just come back next election with better memes. A meme like “Trump shouldn’t be President” is not an existential threat to America, whereas “Charles shouldn’t be King” and “Xi shouldn’t be Chairman” are direct threats to the continuation of their respective systems of government. It’s the definitive strength of the United States.
- sofixa 1y ago
  > UK is a monarchy based on a religious aristocracy Not really. The Monarch has no real power, only "influence", but they don't step in even in the face of disaster (Brexit). It's pretty weird to have a developed country with a state religion, but in reality, it has no bearing on anything. But the US has shown us that "tradition" and principles aren't enough to stop a hostile takeover of power. A Trump-like future monarch could do a lot of damage if they decided; so indeed the UK could do with lots of reforms to enforce proper separations and encode the purely ceremonial role of the monarch.
  - lazide 1y ago
    Eh, Trump is able to do what he does because he’s a populist and a bully in a society that hopes it can either get rich, or not be destroyed, if they just go along. The odds of a monarch pushing those buttons is quite low - monarchs by definition don’t need to be populists, and are rarely able to pretend to make the rest of the population rich either. Much more likely to the UK would end up with a PM doing it, and they’d nuke the last vestiges of the Monarchy in the process. The UK monarchy long ago lost the balls to survive a fight like that.
  - 7952 1y ago
    British tradition does have more teeth though. For example whilst the Monarch may not use that power normally they still have it. With support of the Privy council the King absolutely could remove a malicious but democratic government. They are perfectly placed to unify the people, politicians, civic society, judiciary, police and military. And they can do so legally. And this position is defended by the perfectly reasonable response that they would never do that or have any real power. But then who does? The PM can be replaced in an afternoon by a vote. Parliament would need substantial changes of law to do anything.
    - rcxdude 1y ago
      Parliament is ultimately where the power is. If there's a struggle for power, it would be between parliament and the monarch. I think the only situation where the monarch wins that is if parliament has clearly lost their democratic mandate somehow (like truly massive widespread protests from the population).